Honestly your straw man arguing style is very exhausting to reply to.
Would you mind pointing out a straw man argument of mine?
A few things that make your plan unviable is the simple facts that during summer there will be so much excess electricity, thats not even funny.
How so? Like, how much are we talking about? How do you know it's "excess"?
Maybe breaking down my replies sentence by sentence just to find something to criticize. It's a strawman argument style, when you don't take a comment as a whole but you try to poke holes in sentences individually. It's what you are doing right now.
You do understand that a strawman argument is when you misrepresent the other party's position, right?
You did notice that in this answer, you did not point out any instance of where I misrepresented your position, right?
Poking holes into sentences individually is not a straw man argument.
So, do you have anything to back up your accusation, or do you not?
That lefty bullshit about natural gas "hurting other people", please take that to your support group, nobody is interested in that on an engineering forum.
Oh, now we are at the "insult the other person instead of arguing my position" stage of this discussion?
Am I now supposed to call you a Nazi, or how does this work? I am sorry, I normally argue on the subject of the discussion instead of throwing insults at pople, so you will have to help me out a bit here.
I take it that you aren't interested in actually supporting your position with any non-fallacious arguments?
You cannot just wish yourself into a better future.
OK?! I mean, sounds reasonable, but no idea why you are throwing that in here?!
To achieve anything close to "not replacing the entire infrastructure" with P2G, we'd have to install 1 to 2 PWh of solar power and P2G plants, quadruple our gas storage volume, ... essentially: Put more resources into adding all of that additional infrastructure than would be needed to replace all the inefficient systems, just to avoid replacing those inefficient systems.
Last comment it was 700 TWh, I guess two comments from now it's going to be 10 PWh of solar, and then 100 PWh.
No, it wasn't, you just aren't paying attention. The previous 700 TWh was for heating purposes only, because that was the topic of the discussion. This was for the total energy demand.
Yet you still failed to make a few very simple calculation.
1) How much TW of electricity generation you need to power the heatpumps during the winter. You will find that it's ridiculous compared to any other plan.
Compared to what other plan?
2) Where do you get the approximately 2 trillion EUR to change 40 million households to use geothermal.
Do you have a source for that number, and why that would be needed?
3) What do you do when you realize that the rest of the world doesn't care one little bit about your carbon neutral plan, they keep on using fossil fuels, and there is no way to convince them, because they either burn fuel, or their children will be left without food.
Why would this hypothetical scenario be something that I should concern myself with?
Germany produces 2% of the global CO2 emissions, if it would sink to the bottom of the ocean tomorrow, it wouldn't make a dent.
OK ... so? Like, I mean, that statement sounds reasonably correct ... but how is that relevant?
You need to make cheap, storable, high concentration, renewable energy available for everyone if you want to change anything. And something that turns a profit.
OK?! Here is a question for you: And what if you can't? You saying "You need to" is not exactly something that reality has to obey, is it?
Like, you do see how that is a completely useless statement, right? It's one thing to say "if we had X, then that would solve the problem". But what is the point of saying "we need to have X"? If we can't have X, it's completely useless to say that we need it ... in particular when that in itself is actually a completely unsubstantiated claim. If there is no profitable way to solve climate change, that doesn't make climate change not a thing, right? So, if there is no profitable way, then demanding that the solution must be profitable is just going to doom us all, right?
Which is exactly what P2G does, it turns rooftops, unused land and CO2 and so on into money.
... OK?! I mean, you still haven't addressed all the reasons that I have given as to why I have my doubts about that, but OK, let's assume that you are right: So, how does that mesh with your call for the government to do something about that? If that is profitable business, then why would the government have to do anything about that?! Is there anything that the government is doing that is preventing investors from building these plants that supposedly would be so profitable?!